The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the customer service Mr X received when he contacted the Council regarding his council tax account, nor will we investigate the Council’s complaint handling following this. This is because Mr X has experienced insignificant injustice to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained a Council officer was unprofessional and swore at him during a conversation discussing his council tax account. He also complained about the Council’s complaint handling and failure to retain his calls.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X contacted the Council to discuss a council tax exemption and was unhappy with the customer service he received. He complained to the Council that the officer he spoke with swore at him. He made further complaints regarding the Council’s complaint response, failure to call him when he requested a telephone call and failure to retain his telephone calls. He was also unhappy the Council did not provide a financial award despite initially saying it would.
The Council apologised and upheld his complaint. The Council agreed the customer service he received fell short of expectations but did not find evidence the officer swore at him. The Council did not have record of all of Mr X’s calls and disputed telling Mr X he would receive a financial award.
Mr X remains unhappy with the situation and wants us to find it at fault. The evidence shows the Council has investigated the events complained about and whilst it could not find evidence of Mr X being sworn at, it has apologised and upheld his complaint. There is no evidence to suggest these events caused Mr X a significant or ongoing injustice which is not addressed by the apology. In addition, there is no evidence a financial award would be proportionate. The Ombudsman will not investigate matters where the injustice suffered is not significant.
Mr X has made separate complaints regarding the Council’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman will not investigate a council’s complaint handling where it is not investigating the substantive matters.
Mr X has also complained about the Council’s failure to retain one of his call recordings. As this part of the complaint relates to data handling, this is a matter best placed for the Information Commissioner’s office (ICO) to deal with. It would be reasonable for Mr X to refer to the ICO if he remains unhappy about this.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has experienced insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman